Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[kenjib]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the clarification and I appreciate the time you've taken to respond. I see your point, but I think that in truth you don't really like the OGL. You prefer some other kind of license arrangement that doesn't currently exist and you are hoping people will adhere to that even while you use the OGL.

I understand that this is just your personal opinion, but let's say that it was the official WotC stance (and I am not claiming that it is), just to see where this leads.

1. WotC releases a book that clearly states that I am free to copy and redistribute most of it, and even profit from doing so if I want to.
2. I buy the book, and part of my consideration for doing so is this statement.
3. I copy and redistribute most of the book just like WotC says I can, by accepting WotC's licensing agreement as stated in the book.
4. WotC tells me that I am acting immorally and suggests that while I don't have to legally, I should voluntarily cease and desist on moral grounds.

This is a clear case of bait and switch and in my opinion it would be clearly unethical for WotC to take this position. If WotC doesn't like the terms of the OGL then they should either work on a revised license or be more conservative in their declarations of open content. I mean...they created the license in the first place, right?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Thank you for weighing in and clarifying you initial statement. Also, thank you for the work put into D&D3.5 and UA, and for working to make UA OGC.

I wouldn't worry too much about being a crotchety old geezer. Most of us here on EN World are against cyberpirating and the posting and downloading of pirated works. So we are all crotchety old geezers here.

But that is a different discussion, as far as I am concerned, and not very much related to what we are talking about, i.e. the lawful distribution of OGC and its possible implications on the industry.

I agree... The topic of piracy does pop up in these discussions on occassion, and the subject is bound to derail the actual discussion.

I think we can all agree that the sort of people that would download a scanned copy of UA (being a digital reproduction of the entire UA, covers, PI, and all) will do so regardless of the existance of a legal OGL-compliant document.

To which... I've made four replies for this thread during the last 8 hours and lost each of them from the boards being switched off or just screwing up. As such, I'm ready to bow out (although I'll probably keep reading, so that's no assurance that I'm not going to reply again). As such, I'm re-posting the parts of UA I intend to use in my own material and thus will be transcribing for reasons of neccessity:

Environmental Races
Alternate Classes
Prestige Classes
Generic Classes
Complex Skill Checks
Character Background
Action Points
Metamagic Components
Legendary Weapons
Incantations
Reputation
Honor
Taint
Sanity

I'm about half-done with Sanity and I have Metamagic Components next in line (I was about to develop Power Components, so I'm going to work them up together). If anyone else has something on this list that they are transcribing (for whatever reason), contact me at jdomsalla@swfla.rr.com so we can coordinate efforts and save each other some work.

Otherwise, thanks for the debate to everyone that was civil, or remained civil enough to prevent things from getting too hot (and to the mods for the occassional "Shhh..." when it was needed).

This crotchety old geezer has got a book to write... Later.

 

[barsoomcore]

Aren't you making an assertion that a closed 4E WOULDN'T hurt the industry? Don't you need to provide evidence? I'm just asking, as I'm not clear on how my assertion is so different from yours, from a rules-of-debate standpoint.

I'm not making an assertion. I'm saying I don't see any reason to agree with yours. You say a closed 4E will hurt the industry -- and this is the key point -- MORE than an open 4E will. Your evidence:

I'll direct you to Monte Cook, who talked about how he saw 3.0 and 3.5 splitting the D20 market back when 3.5 came out. Monte knows a lot more about this business than I do. If he thinks 3.5 was going to split the market and hurt all publishers (except maybe WotC, I don't remember if they were included in his point), it would seem a closed 4E would be worse

Since 3.5 was open when it came out (or shortly thereafter), what you need to do is provide a reason for me to think that this effect would be worsened because 4E were closed. That a new edition hurts the industry is a different question.

I suspect Chris doesn't mind you posting stuff for your players.

That's nice. You can suspect all you like. If your suspicions are wrong, what then?

Well, as it turns out, nothing, because your suspicions don't enter into this question. And neither do Chris Pramas' minding

This is why we have laws -- so that I don't have to rely on your suspicions. And THAT'S the crux of what I've been saying. Your comment there just proves my point -- if I have to rely on your suspicions to guide me in what right or wrong, why do we have the license anyway? If we have the license, why should I pay any attention to your suspicions?

Use the OGL or not. If you use it, use it in full acceptance -- no, in full SUPPORT of its terms. Design your business AROUND it, not in SPITE of it. Don't hope that its terms won't be respected. To do otherwise is foolishness.

 

[Setanta]

Since 3.5 was open when it came out (or shortly thereafter), what you need to do is provide a reason for me to think that this effect would be worsened because 4E were closed. That a new edition hurts the industry is a different question.

Monte was saying that the split in player base between 3.0 and 3.5 would hurt the industry. The split would be greater if 4E were closed, because its rules presumably wouldn't be compatable with 3.x (or at least less compatable than 3.5 is with 3.0). I think we can agree that 3.5 has caused a split; there are plenty of threads here and on other boards to that effect. If 4E came out closed there would be people who wouldn't move because it's too soon, they don't like the changes, they don't want to buy the books, and all the other reasons some people haven't switched to 3.5. Throw in the fact that some people would refuse to support a closed 4E simply because it's closed. That right there would make it a bigger split than 3.5 caused. Now, the split would also have a larger effect on publishers. With 3.5, really, publishers can make 3.5 stuff, and the people still using 3.0 have at most a very small amount of conversion work to do. If 4E is closed, they'll have three choices:

1- Only address the part of the market still playing 3.x.
2- Get a license to produce 4E stuff, and ignore the 3.x players
3- Get a license and dual-stat, which annoys lots of people who don't like paying for stats they won't use.

I'm sure you can agree that all three are bad.

Use the OGL or not. If you use it, use it in full acceptance -- no, in full SUPPORT of its terms. Design your business AROUND it, not in SPITE of it. Don't hope that its terms won't be respected. To do otherwise is foolishness.

If you made a D20 product, and it was your whole source of income, would you be happy about people OCRing the whole thing on day one of its release and posting it on the web? Sure, you'd go into the whole thing knowing that such an event was a possibility, but still, wouldn't you rather they at least wait a while, a month or two at least? Or would you have released it as crippled OGC, or possibly avoided the need to use much OGC by not bothering with a hugh-crunch content book? What if crunch was the only thing you felt you could contribute that would sell?

 

[barsoomcore]

If 4E is closed, (publishers will) have three choices:

1- Only address the part of the market still playing 3.x.
2- Get a license to produce 4E stuff, and ignore the 3.x players
3- Get a license and dual-stat, which annoys lots of people who don't like paying for stats they won't use.

I'm sure you can agree that all three are bad.

What I don't see is how 4E closedness worsens the situation. All of these situations exist if 4E is open right? They can either continue to produce 3E, use whatever license is available for 4E or dual-stat.

Whether or not they have to pay for the 4E license is beside the point.

If you made a D20 product, and it was your whole source of income, would you be happy about people OCRing the whole thing on day one of its release and posting it on the web? Sure, you'd go into the whole thing knowing that such an event was a possibility, but still, wouldn't you rather they at least wait a while, a month or two at least? Or would you have released it as crippled OGC, or possibly avoided the need to use much OGC by not bothering with a hugh-crunch content book? What if crunch was the only thing you felt you could contribute that would sell?

If I felt like the only thing I had to contribute was something that people wouldn't bother paying for, I'd be very cautious about my ability to succeed in any market.

Of course I would rather people give me money, even for that which I offer for free. Sure I would. I'd rather you paid me to post on ENWorld. But I'm not going to manage a business on the hope that you will.

There's two possible things you might be arguing with this approach, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

On the one hand, publishers will make more money if people don't release competing products. I agree.

On the other hand, it's not healthy for the industry for peole to release OGC created by others. I don't agree.

Here's a reason -- how do we measure "health of the industry"? Perhaps Health could be measured by "publishers putting out exceptional books of very high editorial and production quality". Note that neither of those qualities have much to do with OGC -- editorial quality affects all the content of the book, not just the OGC, and production quality has nothing to do with OGC at all. So one possible effect of OGC redistribution is that publishers focus on producing beautiful books full of great writing, rather than coming up with half-a-dozen crummy prestige classes to fill their pages. I call that healthy. Maybe redistribution of OGC will lead product differentiation by these qualities rather than game rules.

There's lots of way to define Healthy. Just because some publishers are currently operating with unviable business models does not mean that they are pointing the way the industry will go.

 

[jgbrowning]

I think what we're basically talking about is courtesy-- not morality, ethics, or legality. Acceptable behavior isn't always courteous. One can behave morally and ethically and still be discourteous. There's nothing "wrong" with being discourteous --one can't please everyone all the time-- as courtesy is something beyond the expected neutral behavior. It also varies a lot from person to person.

Someone can put almost all of UA up on a website the day after it's released. This is a GOOD thing. This is what the OGL is for. However, it's discourteous to the publisher to do it so quickly because it may hurt sales and therefore, the publisher's continued support of that which allows the website to put up UA OGC.

It's a circle of courtesy by all involved that hopefully increases both the publisher's and user's enjoyment of the game through the continued creation, use, and support of OGC. Through discourtesy, the creator of the website has the abilty to hurt the publisher of a product through moral, ethical, and legally acceptable actions.

Why do I think it's discourteous? Because the website doesn't have to put the OGC material up in a publically distributed manner en toto right after release. If the website needs the OGC for a campaign (or any other time-sensitive reason) there are many ways to specifically distribute this OGC to those who need the material, and not to everyone in general. This obviously makes some dificulties for the website, but at the same time, it's more courteous to the publisher, without which, after all, there wouldn't be the OGC to begin with. The website extends some courtesy to the publisher in this manner.

Publishers would like others to consider their well being when distributing OGC. This isn't a requirement, nor even an expectation (they agreed to the OGL after all), and neither is any behavior acceptable under the OGL immoral or unethical. Considering others in one's decision, however, is being courteous.

IMHO.

joe b.

 

[Setanta]

What I don't see is how 4E closedness worsens the situation. All of these situations exist if 4E is open right? They can either continue to produce 3E, use whatever license is available for 4E or dual-stat.

4E being closed worsens the situation because it would be more difficult for companies to produce compatable material. If some companies (even if it's just WotC) are producing 4E stuff, and others (maybe everyone but WotC) are making 3.5 stuff, we, the consumers, lose. I'm going to guess you don't see it that way, since from your previous comments I'm thinking you wouldn't feel a need to choose, but I would feel a need to choose.

If I felt like the only thing I had to contribute was something that people wouldn't bother paying for, I'd be very cautious about my ability to succeed in any market.

Fair enough, but it seems you're assuming that people wouldn't bother paying you for it just because they aren't legally required to.

Of course I would rather people give me money, even for that which I offer for free. Sure I would. I'd rather you paid me to post on ENWorld. But I'm not going to manage a business on the hope that you will.

Well, I know if I put out an OGC book (OGC because it's all crunch), I would hope people would pay me for my work (assuming I was actually charging for it). Since I would hope people would pay me, I'll certainly pay them.

There's two possible things you might be arguing with this approach, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I wasn't actually arguing anything. Just asking. I just wanted to see how you'd respond.

On the other hand, it's not healthy for the industry for peole to release OGC created by others. I don't agree.

See, I think it is healthy for the people to release OGC created by others. I just see a difference between someone taking some OGC from one book, adding to it (even if it's just indexing the book with hyperlinks) and releasing it, and someone taking 100% of the text of a product and posting it for anyone to download for free. I pretty much agree with samothdm here. I think Bendris Noulg posting sections of UA on his website for his players is great. At some point though, rather than posting all of it, I think it becomes more fair to the publisher to just ask players to buy the book if they want to use the rules. There's definitely a lot of gray area there- no doubt.

 

[Setanta]

Joe B-

You said it so much better than I have been trying to. Thanks for chiming in. That's the essence of my point, but you hit it much more clearly than I was able to.

 

[jgbrowning]

Joe B-

You said it so much better than I have been trying to. Thanks for chiming in. That's the essence of my point, but you hit it much more clearly than I was able to.

I do think that it's very important to remember that if someone were to put out the entirety of a work right after it is released, that person is completely and utterly within their rights and are, at least in my opinion, behaving appropriately as long as they are using the OGL according to law. I don't think anyone should be name-called or be accused of acting unethically or imorally by doing so.

I'd like to think that an e-mail exchange would convince that person to take down the OGC for a brief while so as to not hurt the publisher during the rather short sales cycle of d20 products. I think almost everyone is reasonable and understands the situation of both publisher and customer.

So far, everyone has acted in such a manner. Which actually makes me a bit proud about the customers in general. Gamers generally want game companies to do well. Being courteous helps publishers keep on producing OGC material as opposed to culling back and trying to protect their investments. Which I view as the publisher being courteous back to the gamer, because anything beyond the required amount of OGC is being courteous. Really, we're all in the same boat together, and compromise and courtesy within legal rights benefits everyone.

joe b.

 

[Ranger REG]

I am really not sure how you guys have managed to come up with this many posts discussing what is in effect a non issue . Allow me to explain:

1 - When WoTC released the 3 core rules books, all 3 books were (and still are) completely closed content. This allowed WoTC to be the sole seller of 3E products.

2 - Then after a while WoTC released the SRD for 3E under the OGL, this allowed 3rd party publishers to write derivative rules.

2a - Many different formatted versions appear on web site as html, doc, pdf etc.

Unchallenged.

3 - Some publishers wanted to write completely closed systems (I believe Spycraft is non-OGL), so they licensed the closed D20 system directly from WoTC

Correction: Spycraft is not a completely closed system. At the time of the book's release, only one game content remained closed and are used with permission by Wizards of the Coast: VP/WP health system. But for the most part, mainly the ruleset, Spycraft is a third-party d20 product in compliance with the OGL.

4 - WoTC produced the 3 core 3.5E rule books, again all 3 were completely closed content.

5 - A while after the release of the closed content WoTC released an OGL 3.5 SRD (The timeframe of 2 months springs to mind).

5a - Many different formatted versions appear on web site as html, doc, pdf etc.

Unchallenged.

6 - WoTC releases Unearthed Arcana as OGL and all hell breaks loose.

Hypothosis: WoTC deliberatly released Unearthed Arcana under the OGL with full knowledge of the consequences.

Evidence: In the past WoTC have released a closed content version first and then 2 months later released an OGL version. If they did not want to have people transcribe and redistribute the product then they would have released it as closed content and then released an open version in a few months time.

Well, that's not always the case, but usually the OGC material derived from the copyrighted material soon followed and entered into the SRD.

If a publisher wants to retain complete control over their product for a fixed period of time before opening it up then they should release the hardcopy as closed content and then release an SRD as open content later on.

Personal Opinion: Personally I would rather see publishers release a closed content book and then after a time allow me to download the open version than release the book as open and then complain when people treat it as open.

Unfortunately, to make such a copyrighted product while utilizing the d20 ruleset without the OGL would require a separate agreement with Wizards of the Coast, unless the publisher wishes to introduce a whole new ruleset.